Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 12th, 2006

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Some on the other side have been saying we need to have an amendment here to ban campaign workers from lobbying. The problem with that is, where does it stop and where does it end? The Conservative Party probably had about 70,000 or 80,000 people who worked on its campaign in the last election. Just multiply the number of riding volunteers times the 308 constituencies. It's an enormous number of people, so who do you start with and who do you end with?

People who participate in elections have not necessarily had their hands on the levers of power in government. These amendments, from beginning to end, have always been designed to deal with people who have worked in the government. We've been perfectly consistent from beginning to end, our campaign platform is being fulfilled completely, and we're proud to stand by both this act and this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(On clause 68)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We will go next to the amendments on clause 68, starting on page 58.

Before that we're going to take a break.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Order.

We have some amendments to clause 68, starting with BQ-12 on page 58.

Incidentally, Mr. Dewar, this is the same as NDP-4.1 on page 58.1

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I am happy to hear that Mr. Dewar will support my amendment.

This will be applicable to the whole bill. By deleting lines 20 to 24 on page 66, this will eliminate the concept of a secret ballot.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The next one is G-25.1 on page 58.2.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Consider it moved.

Are there any comments from the expert panel? No.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(On clause 69)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The first one on page 59 is G-26.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I move this amendment.

This amendment in clause 69 of Bill C-2 replaces lines 11 through 24 with the following text. Everyone has it before them. I invite any brief comments from the technical panel.

[Michèle Hurteau]

We're trying to make sure the consulting lobbyist records the prescribed type of communication--for example, a call--rather than the type of meeting organized or arranged.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Madam Hurteau.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll go to Liberal amendment L-5 on page 60.

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So moved.

We think this will bring some symmetry into the record and allow the registrar, for instance, to be able to compare what was recorded by both the lobbyist and the senior public office holder. That will provide some verification.

It is not an undue burden on any senior public office holder. They should know with whom they're meeting and what they're talking about. If the lobbyist should record it, I think the senior office holder should as well. That will provide a very neat way for the registrar of lobbyists to be able to confirm that people have properly reported on either side.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The reason this was not included in the original bill is that the bill calls on the lobbyist to keep the records, and the public office holder is responsible for confirming whether those records are accurate and complete. We think that's a perfectly reasonable approach to take, since the lobbyist approaches the public office holder to lobby; given it is their job to lobby and given it is their interests they're advancing, it should be their responsibility to record their meetings. We add the additional responsibility for the public office holder to take note of whether or not the lobbyist has accurately and completely registered the times and dates of meetings they may have held together.

Once again, lobbyists initiate advocacy on public office holders--ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and others. It's their interests that are being discussed in these meetings, and therefore we believe it is their responsibility to keep records of those meetings, not be the responsibility of the persons being lobbied; their responsibility becomes verification.

I would argue that the worthy objectives of this amendment are already covered in the original act because the public office holder must verify accuracy and completeness. At the same time, the existing act allows for the practical reality that it's the lobbyists who are pushing an agenda; it's therefore they who should be responsible for keeping records of meetings, dates, and times.

I'd ask for any insight from our expert panel.

[Joe Wild]

I think it's important to note that the senior public office holder's side of the relationship is governed under clause 73 of Bill C-2 on page 73 of the bill, which sets out section 9.1 of the Lobbyists Registration Act. That section provides an authority for the commissioner to send the reports that the lobbyist has prepared to the senior public office holder, who is then under a duty to confirm to the commissioner the accuracy and completeness of the report, or else to correct and complete it. In this way the senior public office holder is implicitly put under an obligation to keep track of certain forms of communication in order to perform this actual verification.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen is next.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I have a further comment.

In terms of keeping the circle whole, I accept all that, and those are good provisions, but the trouble is for the registrar of lobbyists. If the lobbyist does not properly record, that simply may not be known. Therefore, there wouldn't be anything for the senior public office holder to confirm, because it wouldn't be registered. It's a way of making sure there's a check on the lobbyist's responsibility.

[Joe Wild]

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the provision on the certification is not just for accuracy; it's also for completeness. If there is an omission, the senior public office holder would be expected to point that out to the commissioner when doing the verification on the report.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Chair, there's nothing to verify if the lobbyist doesn't actually report. That was my point in closing the circle.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

There is something to verify, because if a public office holder met with a lobbyist, he or she knows they've met with the lobbyist and can verify if that meeting was reported merely by going to the lobbyist registrar's website, where it would be posted. If it is not posted, then the public office holder would have the responsibility to contact the registrar to ensure that it was posted and that the registration of that meeting was carried out.

The job of the public office holder is not only to verify the accuracy of what the lobbyist reports, but also to point out any omissions. If I met with an association of Canadian fishers and they did not post it on the website, I would be responsible to correct the record and ensure that it did get posted.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

How would you know?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'd know by going to the website; it's a public registry.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

So you'd be doing something overt as a senior public office holder?